Illinois House Committee Approves Civil Union Bill
The Human Services Committee of the Illinois House approved a civil union bill (HB1826) 5-4 on Wednesday. The bill will now move on to the House floor, where the bill's sponsor, Rep. Greg Harris, (D-Chicago), hopes to call it up for a vote in the coming months.
Said Harris, who is gay: "Illinois is ready now for civil unions. The outpouring of public support shows it's ready for civil unions, and I hope one day it will come around to the concept of same-sex marriage."
Harris had introduced a gay marriage bill in February, saying "We wanted to reaffirm in this bill that there is no religion, no church, no temple, no mosque that we are trying to compel to consecrate marriages." At the time, he said that civil unions had been considered but had been thrown out because of its separate-but-equal status.
Now, according to the Chicago Tribune, "after discussions with House colleagues, Harris abandoned his efforts to legalize gay marriage, saying the idea faced too much resistance. Illinois just last year banned discrimination based on sexual orientation after a decade of debate."
Illinois bill would allow civil unions of gay couples [chicago tribune]
Illinois has got it right.
Civil unions afford virtually the same benefits to same sex couples that heterosexual, married couples possess. If more homosexuals would 'wake up and smell the coffee,' they'd liklely have much more success on this battlefield.
Gay marriage will always have insurmountabel opposition, with good, correct, sound reasoning behind it.
This the reality, i.e., is the way to get your rights. Let go the 'banner.'
Posted by: Stephen | Mar 22, 2007 9:21:40 AM
Yay Illinois! Illinois has a democratic house, senate, and governor, so this bill actually has a shot. If it passes, Illinois will be the largest state (Illinois is the 5th largest state by population after California, Texas, New York, and Florida) and the only state not on in the Northeast to offer civil unions.
Illinois is living up to its Blue State cred.
Posted by: Shaun | Mar 22, 2007 11:31:08 AM
The Blue States are on the march!
Posted by: Je | Mar 22, 2007 1:07:18 PM
Sorry Stephen I am not crumbs. I will not accept less (in the long run). I will not be happy with less.
I will acknowledge that this is a first step.
Posted by: Jack! | Mar 22, 2007 3:49:37 PM
While I agree with what Stephen says...I do disagree with his thought that gay marriage itself is an insurmouintable goal, and I especially disagree with there being ***good, correct, sound reasoning*** for this.
I have always believed that civil unions are a great first step, as long as the benifits of marriage(tax, partner benifits, etc.) are part of it. Then later, hopefully in just a few years, once the non-gay populace has seen that the world didn't end with civil unions, that gay marriage can be the next step.
Posted by: joshua | Mar 23, 2007 2:55:23 AM
I will never buy into, "The sky didn't fall...", "...world didn't end." catch phrases that a majority of gay-marriage proponents use as their reasoning and logic for same-sex marriage. It is a total cop-out. Do they REALLY expect the sky to fall?
To accept same sex marriage is to erode the fabric of a society that respects moral codes, religious belief, structure, guidelines, boundaries, and yes, differences. The right to hold different opinions and beliefs while still holding onto common ground continues to stabilize this country and is a tenet of the foundation this country was raised on.
Same sex marriage (an oxymoron) simply will never be the same as a heterosexual marriage. Marriage was never defined that way. Marriage brings together a man and a woman for primarily, inherently for the purpose of pro-creation, i.e., continuing civilization. Hence, the government sought benefits for child-bearing couples in the form of tax benefits. That doesn't make null and void a married couple that choose not to have children. They still (assuming no health problems that would prevent it) carry the ABILITY to re-produce. Same sex couples are DIFFERENT in this (not so small) way.
I support civil unions for same sex, long term couples. Civil unions bridge the gap of inequality while recognizing the difference aforementioned. The homogenization of society by forcing a new definition of marriage upon the majority is
not in our best interest.
Posted by: Stephen | Mar 23, 2007 6:33:49 AM
I would just like to point out that marriage has historically been an economic arrangement, which was used by family patriarchs to control where their wealth went.
Also, please do not attempt to legislate your values onto society. When you prevent gay couples from marrying, you are essentially denying them their rights to be treated like any other citizen in this country. When gay couples marry, what values are the legislating onto you? Nobody is forcing you to pay for the wedding. In what way do they interfere with your rights as a citizen?
And, lastly, if anyone is trying to "homogenize" marriage, it is you, sir, who is attempting to do so through your insistence that marriage be between a man and a woman.
Posted by: Sami | Mar 24, 2007 5:20:19 PM
I would just like to point out that in Stephen's comment he somehow manages to erase all the gay and lesbian people who are curently engaged in raising children. This includes both biological children and adopted children. I don't think any fair-minded person should be willing to stand by and say that priveleges like tax benefits for parents should be limited to heterosexual couples. My godsons have two moms. Why should their moms struggle under an additional financial burden because they are moms and not a mom and a dad? Why shoul d my godsons have to do without when compared to their friends with heterosexual parents.
Personall I don't care if we call it "marriage", "domestic partnership", "civil unions" or "warm fuzziness" so long as people have all the same benefits regardless of whether the couple is composed of people of the same or opposite genders. And that should include federal recognition of the union and its equivalency! This will obviously take some time and hard effort.
Posted by: Michael | Mar 25, 2007 12:18:18 AM
Michael, you're absolutely right but don't expect Stephen to respond to your pointing out that gay couples have and are raising children.
I, as a gay father, have pointed this out to him at least 20 times and he has YET to repond to me directly even though I have directed MANY comments and questions directly to him.
Don't hold your breath.
Posted by: Zeke | Mar 28, 2007 11:37:17 AM